In September 517, bishops from across the Burgundian Kingdom gathered at a place called Epaone to consider how the Christian Church should operate in a political world that had changed dramatically within a generation. Roman imperial government had disappeared from western Europe, Germanic kingdoms occupied much of former Roman Gaul, and Catholic bishops increasingly served as religious leaders, landholders, judges, administrators, and representatives of communities that still thought of themselves as heirs to a Roman Christian past.
The Council of Epaone produced forty canons addressing everything from the conduct of priests and the ownership of church property to relations with heretics, marriage, monasteries, slavery, relics, and the role of bishops. Yet one short rule became particularly durable. Canon 26 declared that an altar not made of stone was not to be consecrated with chrism.
That sentence would eventually travel far beyond the Burgundian kingdom. Centuries later, medieval canonists were still copying it into collections of church law. Behind that famous rule, however, stood a much larger attempt to bring order to a changing church at the beginning of the sixth century. The surviving acts, convocation documents, and episcopal subscriptions make Epaone unusually well documented for a council of its period. The standard critical editions preserve the forty canons as well as material surrounding the council and the names of its participants.
A Burgundian Kingdom in Religious Transition
The bishops who came to Epaone did not meet in the old Roman Empire, even though Roman institutions, laws, language, and Christian culture remained visible everywhere around them. The territory belonged to the Burgundian Kingdom, one of several states that had taken shape in Gaul as imperial power in the West collapsed.
Religion complicated this political transformation. Many Burgundian rulers had adhered to Arian Christianity, which differed sharply from the Nicene Christianity represented by bishops such as Avitus of Vienne. Catholic bishops nevertheless continued to operate inside the kingdom, and relations between the two communities could involve cooperation as well as theological disagreement.
An important change came with Sigismund, son and successor of King Gundobad. Sigismund had embraced Nicene Christianity before becoming king and succeeded his father in 516. His reign therefore created a very different religious environment for Catholic bishops. Modern scholarship treats the Council of Epaone as part of this broader shift in royal patronage toward Nicene Christianity, although the surviving acts do not actually say that Sigismund personally summoned the council. That distinction matters. Epaone was certainly held in the political atmosphere created by Sigismund’s accession, but the surviving evidence presents Avitus of Vienne and Viventiolus of Lyon as the ecclesiastical organizers.
Sigismund’s religious policies were already visible before the council. His association with the monastery of Agaune, later known as the Abbey of Saint-Maurice, placed royal authority alongside the cult of the martyrs and the institutional growth of Catholic Christianity. At almost the same historical moment, Burgundian royal law was also being gathered and revised. The Liber Constitutionum, commonly associated with the Lex Burgundionum, received a Sigismundian promulgation in 517. Churchmen and royal officials were therefore attempting, in different spheres, to define rules for governing a society that combined Roman traditions with the realities of a post-Roman kingdom.
Avitus of Vienne and the Call to Epaone
One of the most valuable pieces of evidence for the council is the surviving letter of Avitus of Vienne summoning bishops to attend. Avitus was among the most influential churchmen in the Burgundian world, and his surviving correspondence provides a rare view into the disputes, alliances, and pastoral problems that surrounded the council.
Avitus did not treat attendance as optional. He expected bishops to appear personally whenever possible. If serious illness made that impossible, the absent bishop was to send trusted presbyters capable of representing him in the deliberations. The surviving subscription of Peladius, a presbyter representing Bishop Salutaris of Avignon, shows that this was not merely theoretical. Peladius attended and subscribed to the decisions in his bishop’s place.
Viventiolus of Lyon issued his own summons. His surviving letter is especially interesting because it allowed for the presence of laypeople. Gregory Halfond notes that the council’s acts do not identify individual lay participants, so it is impossible to determine how many actually attended. The principle that lay Christians had a legitimate interest in clerical behavior nevertheless appears again in Canon 24, which permitted laypeople to bring credible accusations against members of the clergy.
The bishops were summoned for September 6, 517. By the time the council concluded on September 15, twenty-four bishops and one clerical representative had subscribed to its decisions. The exact location of Epaone remains uncertain. Scholars have proposed places in the old province of Vienne, including locations near modern Anneyron or Saint-Maurice-l’Exil, but the identification is not secure enough to treat any modern town as unquestionably the site. What is certain is that the organizers chose Epaone as a practical meeting place for bishops traveling from different portions of the Burgundian kingdom.
Forty Canons for a Changing Church
The forty canons of Epaone reveal what bishops believed required regulation in everyday Christian life. They were not devoted to one theological controversy. Instead, they addressed the practical machinery of the church and the behavior of the people within it.
Some rules governed episcopal authority. Others regulated ordination, monasteries, ecclesiastical property, penance, marriage, relations with non-Nicene Christians, relations with Jews, and the treatment of enslaved people. Still others dealt with matters that might appear surprisingly ordinary. Clerics were restricted from keeping hunting dogs or birds used for sport, while candidates for ordination were expected to demonstrate an appropriately religious life before entering the clergy.
Epaone was not creating church law from nothing. The bishops knew the legislation produced by earlier Gallic councils, particularly Agde in 506 and Orléans in 511. In that sense, Epaone belonged to a developing conciliar culture in which bishops borrowed, revised, expanded, and sometimes rejected earlier rules according to the circumstances of their own kingdoms. The Council of Agde had legislated for Catholic communities living under Visigothic rule, while Orléans had performed a comparable function in the Frankish kingdom. Epaone brought this tradition into Burgundy.
Yet the canons were more than administrative housekeeping. Together they reveal bishops trying to define where authority belonged. They wanted to distinguish church property from private wealth, clerical courts from secular litigation, Catholic worship from heretical religious practice, and legitimate marriages from relationships the bishops considered forbidden. The council was an attempt to make boundaries visible.
The Stone Altar Rule
No canon from Epaone is more recognizable than Canon 26. Its Latin is strikingly short: Altaria, si non sunt lapidea, chrismatis unctione non consecrentur. In practical terms, altars that were not made of stone were not to receive consecration through anointing with chrism.
The rule is often summarized by saying that Epaone prohibited wooden altars. That captures the direction of the legislation but can make the canon sound broader than its actual wording. The bishops did not order every existing wooden altar in Burgundy immediately destroyed. Their rule concerned consecration. If an altar was to receive the ritual anointing that marked it as a formally consecrated altar, stone was required.
That wording becomes more understandable when Epaone is placed beside the Council of Agde. Eleven years earlier, Agde’s Canon 14 had specified that altars were to be consecrated not simply through chrismal anointing but also through priestly blessing. Epaone took the existing concern with the proper dedication of altars and added a material requirement. The object receiving the anointing was to be stone.
The importance of stone should not be reduced to a simple story in which Christianity suddenly abandoned wood in 517. Christian altar practice had developed differently across regions, and a conciliar rule does not prove that every parish immediately followed it. In fact, the existence of the canon suggests that non-stone altars were familiar enough to require regulation.
What Epaone did was connect permanence of material with the formal consecration of sacred space. An altar was not simply useful furniture upon which the Eucharist happened to be celebrated. The requirement of stone placed the altar within an increasingly regulated ritual world involving consecration, chrism, clerical authority, relics, and the physical setting of worship.
The preceding Canon 25 makes that setting even clearer. It restricted the placement of saints’ relics in rural or private oratories unless a suitable clerical presence could maintain the required religious observance. Read beside Canon 26, the two measures suggest that the bishops were concerned not only with what Christians believed but also with where worship occurred, who supervised it, what sacred objects were present, and how those objects were treated.
Clergy, Property, and Episcopal Control
Some of Epaone’s most revealing regulations concern money and property. By the sixth century, churches could possess substantial lands and goods, and the difference between the possessions of a priest and the possessions of the church he administered could become difficult to define.
Canon 7 declared that parish presbyters could not validly sell property belonging to the church. Canon 8 went further. A presbyter acquiring property while administering a church was expected to document the acquisition in the church’s name or relinquish his position. These rules show bishops attempting to prevent local clergy from treating ecclesiastical resources as family or personal estates.
Other canons strengthened episcopal control over clergy themselves. Canon 3 barred those who had undergone public penance from ordination. Canon 13 treated false testimony by a cleric as an extremely serious offense. Canon 22 ordered a priest or deacon guilty of a grave crime to lose clerical office and enter a monastery, where he could continue to receive communion.
The monastery therefore appears not only as a center of ascetic religious life but also as a place of ecclesiastical discipline. Removal from office did not necessarily mean abandonment of the offender. Epaone could combine punishment, exclusion from authority, penance, and continued participation in Christian sacramental life.
Canon 11 addressed another difficult boundary, the relationship between clergy and secular courts. Clerics were not to initiate appeals to public courts without their bishop’s permission, although they were expected to answer secular proceedings when they themselves were accused. The council was therefore not claiming that clerics existed completely outside civil law. It was instead trying to regulate the circumstances under which they entered secular judicial institutions and to preserve episcopal oversight of clerical disputes.
Catholics, Heretics, and Jews
The Burgundian kingdom’s religious diversity appears clearly in the canons. Arian Christianity did not vanish the moment Sigismund became a Nicene king, and Jewish communities were also part of the social landscape of late antique Gaul.
Canon 15 sought to enforce social separation through the shared meal. Higher ranking clerics who attended banquets with heretical clerics faced exclusion from ecclesiastical communion for a year, while lesser clergy were threatened with corporal punishment. The canon also prohibited lay Christians from attending Jewish banquets and imposed consequences for doing so.
Such legislation demonstrates that religious boundaries were being negotiated not only in churches or theological writings but also around dining tables. Bishops worried that eating together could represent fellowship, acceptance, or blurred religious identity. The severity of the rule also suggests that such contact was not imaginary. Councils generally legislate against practices that churchmen believe are actually occurring.
Yet the next canon introduces an important complication. Canon 16 allowed presbyters to anoint seriously ill heretics with chrism when they suddenly requested conversion. Healthy converts were normally expected to seek the bishop, but danger of death created an exception. The same council that tried to prevent inappropriate religious fellowship was unwilling to let episcopal procedure stand in the way of a dying person’s reception into the Nicene Church.
The combination is revealing. Epaone’s bishops wanted stronger boundaries, but they also wanted conversion. Discipline and pastoral flexibility existed beside each other.
Women, Widows, and Deaconesses
Canon 21 has attracted substantial attention because it addressed women known as deaconesses. The bishops abolished within their territory the consecration of widows who were called deaconesses and directed such women toward a penitential form of blessing instead.
The wording is historically important because the meaning and functions attached to the title deaconess varied widely in late antiquity. It should not automatically be assumed that every woman carrying the title performed exactly the same liturgical or institutional role, nor that the office functioned identically in the eastern and western churches. What Epaone does establish is that the Burgundian bishops knew of a practice in which widows could receive a religious consecration and be described as deaconesses, and they wanted that practice stopped in their region.
The canon also had an afterlife. Later Gallic councils returned to questions involving women who had received a diaconal blessing, demonstrating that the issue did not disappear after Epaone. The legislation therefore offers a useful reminder that conciliar prohibition and lived religious practice were not always the same thing.
Other canons regulated clerical interaction with women and women’s religious communities. Canon 38 limited access to monasteries of women, allowing older men of proven character to enter when necessary and requiring priests who entered to celebrate Mass to leave once the service had been completed. These rules reflect the council’s broader effort to regulate reputation, sexuality, religious households, and clerical conduct.
Marriage, Kinship, and the Reach of Church Law
Canon 30 was among the most consequential provisions enacted at Epaone. It established an extensive group of prohibited marriages between people considered too closely related through blood or marriage.
This was not an abstract theological exercise. Avitus had already encountered actual marital disputes involving relationships that church authorities considered illicit. Modern scholarship has connected Epaone’s legislation with cases such as that of Vincomalus, who had married his deceased wife’s sister. Another dispute involving the Burgundian official Stephanus and a similarly prohibited relationship soon became serious enough to occupy another episcopal gathering at Lyon.
The significance of Canon 30 extends beyond family morality. Marriage connected households, property, inheritance, political alliances, and aristocratic networks. When bishops defined which relatives could marry, they were claiming authority over relationships at the center of elite social and political life.
Epaone’s influence can be seen in later legislation. The Council of Orléans in 541 explicitly referred to the earlier Epaone precedent when regulating incestuous unions. What began as legislation inside a Burgundian kingdom survived the disappearance of that kingdom itself.
Slavery and the Limits of Episcopal Reform
The canons also open a window onto slavery in sixth-century Christian society. Epaone did not challenge slavery as an institution. Enslaved people remained property under both secular and ecclesiastical assumptions, and the council’s legislation must be read within that reality.
At the same time, the bishops attempted to place some limits on the master’s power. Canon 34 imposed two years of penance on a master who killed an enslaved person on his own authority. Another rule addressed enslaved people who sought sanctuary in churches and the conditions under which they could be returned to their masters.
These measures should not be transformed into a modern abolitionist program that the council did not possess. They are significant for a different reason. Epaone shows ecclesiastical authorities asserting that even within a society that accepted slavery, the master’s authority was not morally unlimited. The killing of an enslaved person could become a matter for church discipline rather than being treated solely as the exercise of ownership.
That tension between accepting an institution and attempting to regulate abuses within it appears repeatedly in early medieval church legislation. Epaone provides unusually direct evidence for the process.
From Epaone to Medieval Canon Law
The Burgundian Kingdom did not survive for long after the council. Frankish forces eventually absorbed it in 534. If Epaone’s importance depended entirely upon the survival of Sigismund’s political order, its forty canons might have become little more than an isolated record of a vanished state.
Instead, they traveled.
The canons were copied into chronological collections of Gallic church legislation and selectively entered systematic canonical collections. The seventh-century Hispana transmitted a number of them, although some were incorrectly attributed to the Council of Agde. Later canonists including Regino of Prüm, Burchard of Worms, Ivo of Chartres, and Gratian preserved portions of the Epaone tradition.
Canon 26 provides a particularly clear example. Ivo of Chartres transmitted the stone altar rule in his Decretum and Panormia. In the twelfth century, Gratian placed the rule in the Decretum, where it appears in the section on consecration beside earlier Gallic legislation concerning the dedication of altars. Gratian explicitly transmitted the principle that altars were not to be anointed with chrism unless they were stone.
The journey of this short canon is remarkable. A regulation issued by bishops meeting somewhere in the Burgundian kingdom in September 517 became part of the legal memory of medieval western Christianity centuries later.
Why the Council of Epaone Matters
Epaone matters because its canons preserve a church in transition. The bishops stood between the institutional inheritance of the Roman world and the political realities of the early medieval kingdoms. They did not abandon Roman Christianity when imperial government disappeared. They adapted its structures to a new landscape.
Their concerns were intensely practical. Who owned church property? When could a priest go to a secular court? Who could become a cleric? What happened when clergy committed serious crimes? Could laypeople accuse priests? How should dying heretics seeking conversion be treated? What marriages were forbidden? Who could enter a women’s monastery? Where could saints’ relics be placed? What material was appropriate for an altar?
The answers sometimes appear severe to modern readers. The restrictions involving Jews, heretics, women, marriage, and religious discipline belong to a very different social and theological world. Yet that is precisely what makes the council valuable. Its forty canons reveal Christianity not simply as a collection of doctrines but as an institution trying to regulate property, family life, worship, clerical behavior, religious identity, and social relationships.
The stone altar rule captures that larger process in miniature. Canon 26 was only a sentence, but it brought material, ritual, and authority together. Stone marked permanence. Chrism marked consecration. Episcopal legislation determined when the two belonged together.
The kingdom in which Epaone met disappeared within two decades, while the location of the council itself became uncertain. The legislation proved far more durable. Through later councils and canonical collections, the decisions of those Burgundian bishops entered the developing legal tradition of western Christianity. Epaone therefore survives not because the kingdom that produced it endured, but because generations of churchmen kept copying, debating, and applying its rules long after Burgundy’s political world had changed.
Sources & Further Reading
de Clercq, Charles, ed. Concilia Galliae, A. 511–A. 695. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 148A. Turnhout: Brepols, 1963, 20–37. https://www.brepols.net/products/IS-9782503014838-1
Maassen, Friedrich, ed. Concilia aevi Merovingici. Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Concilia 1. Hannover: Hahn, 1893, 15–30. https://www.mgh.de/en/mgh-publications/mgh-publication-series/concilia
Gaudemet, Jean, and Brigitte Basdevant. Les canons des conciles mérovingiens (VIe–VIIe siècles). Vol. 1. Sources Chrétiennes 353. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1989, 93–125. https://www.editionsducerf.fr/librairie/sc-353-les-canons-des-conciles-merovingiens-i/
Scholz, Sebastian, ed. Ausgewählte Synoden Galliens und des merowingischen Frankenreichs. Ausgewählte Quellen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 56. Darmstadt: wbg Academic, 2022, 131–153. https://www.herder.de/wissen/shop/p8/87478-ausgewaehlte-synoden-galliens-und-des-merowingischen-frankenreichs-ebook-pdf/
Peiper, Rudolf, ed. Alcimi Ecdicii Aviti Viennensis Episcopi Opera quae supersunt. Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 6.2. Berlin: Weidmann, 1883. https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_auct_ant_6_2/
Shanzer, Danuta, and Ian Wood, trans. Avitus of Vienne: Letters and Selected Prose. Translated Texts for Historians 38. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2002. https://www.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/doi/book/10.3828/978-0-85323-588-0
Halfond, Gregory I. “Epaonense / Épaone: Interprovincial Council in Épaone; 517.” Lexikon der Konzilien. March 2025. https://www.konziliengeschichte.org/site/de/publikationen/lexikon/database/481.html
Halfond, Gregory I. The Archaeology of Frankish Church Councils, AD 511–768. Medieval Law and Its Practice 6. Leiden: Brill, 2010. https://brill.com/display/title/16797
Halfond, Gregory I. “Cum Consensu Omnium: Frankish Church Councils from Clovis to Charlemagne.” History Compass 5, no. 2 (2007): 539–559. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2007.00421.x
Gaudemet, Jean. “Epaone, concile de.” Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques 15 (1963): 524–545. https://www.konziliengeschichte.org/site/de/publikationen/lexikon/database/481.html
Pontal, Odette. Die Synoden im Merowingerreich. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1986. https://books.google.com/books?id=P6QtAAAAYAAJ
Mardirossian, Aram. “Oriental Canons and Barbarian Kingdom: The Influence of Oriental Canon Law on the Legislation of the Council of Epaone.” 2005. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291093186_Oriental_Canons_and_barbarian_kingdom_The_influence_of_Oriental_canon_law_on_the_legislation_of_the_Council_of_Epaone
Wood, Ian. “Incest, Law and the Bible in Sixth-Century Gaul.” Early Medieval Europe 7, no. 3 (1998): 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0254.00031
Ubl, Karl. Inzestverbot und Gesetzgebung: Die Konstruktion eines Verbrechens (300–1100). Millennium-Studien 20. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2008. https://books.google.com/books?id=uSskAQAAIAAJ
Favrod, Justin. Histoire politique du royaume burgonde (443–534). Bibliothèque historique vaudoise 113. Lausanne: Bibliothèque historique vaudoise, 1997. https://books.google.com/books?id=XgYMAQAAMAAJ
Wood, Ian. The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman, 1994. https://books.google.com/books?id=GqRdAAAAMAAJ
Wood, Ian. “Burgundians and Bishops.” In Bishops under Threat: Contexts and Episcopal Strategies in the Late Antique and Early Medieval West, 167–182. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, 2023. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110778649/html
Salis, Ludwig Rudolf von, ed. Leges Burgundionum. Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Leges Nationum Germanicarum 2.1. Hannover: Hahn, 1892. https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ll_nat_germ_2_1/
Drew, Katherine Fischer, trans. The Burgundian Code: Book of Constitutions or Law of Gundobad; Additional Enactments. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972. https://www.pennpress.org/9780812210354/the-burgundian-code/
“Lex Burgundionum.” Bibliotheca Legum. University of Cologne. Accessed October 4, 2026. https://www.leges.uni-koeln.de/en/lex/lex-burgundionum/
“Lex Romana Burgundionum.” Bibliotheca Legum. University of Cologne. Accessed October 4, 2026. https://www.leges.uni-koeln.de/en/lex/lex-romana-burgundionum/
Marius of Avenches. Chronica. In Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 11, edited by Theodor Mommsen, 225–239. Berlin: Weidmann, 1894. https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_auct_ant_11/
Gregory of Tours. Decem Libri Historiarum. In Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores Rerum Merovingicarum 1.1, edited by Bruno Krusch and Wilhelm Levison. Hannover: Hahn, 1951. https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_rer_merov_1_1/
Krusch, Bruno, ed. “Vita Abbatum Acaunensium.” In Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores Rerum Merovingicarum 7, 322–336. Hannover: Hahn, 1920. https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_rer_merov_7/
Szafranowski, Jerzy. “The Letter of Avitus, Bishop of Vienne, Inviting the Bishops to the Council of Épaone, AD 517.” Presbyters in the Late Antique West. Institute of History, University of Warsaw. Accessed October 4, 2026. https://presbytersproject.ihuw.pl/index.php?SourceID=1096&id=6
Szafranowski, Jerzy. “Canon 3 of the Council of Épaone, AD 517.” Presbyters in the Late Antique West. Institute of History, University of Warsaw. Accessed October 4, 2026. https://presbytersproject.ihuw.pl/index.php?SourceID=1128&id=6
Szafranowski, Jerzy. “Canon 7 of the Council of Épaone, AD 517.” Presbyters in the Late Antique West. Institute of History, University of Warsaw. Accessed October 4, 2026. https://presbytersproject.ihuw.pl/index.php?SourceID=1143&id=6
Szafranowski, Jerzy. “Canon 11 of the Council of Épaone, AD 517.” Presbyters in the Late Antique West. Institute of History, University of Warsaw. Accessed October 4, 2026. https://presbytersproject.ihuw.pl/index.php?SourceID=1148&id=6
Szafranowski, Jerzy. “Canon 13 of the Council of Épaone, AD 517.” Presbyters in the Late Antique West. Institute of History, University of Warsaw. Accessed October 4, 2026. https://presbytersproject.ihuw.pl/index.php?SourceID=1151&id=6
Szafranowski, Jerzy. “Canon 15 of the Council of Épaone, AD 517.” Presbyters in the Late Antique West. Institute of History, University of Warsaw. Accessed October 4, 2026. https://presbytersproject.ihuw.pl/index.php?SourceID=1153&id=6
Szafranowski, Jerzy. “Canon 16 of the Council of Épaone, AD 517.” Presbyters in the Late Antique West. Institute of History, University of Warsaw. Accessed October 4, 2026. https://presbytersproject.ihuw.pl/index.php?SourceID=1154&id=6
Szafranowski, Jerzy. “Canon 22 of the Council of Épaone, AD 517.” Presbyters in the Late Antique West. Institute of History, University of Warsaw. Accessed October 4, 2026. https://presbytersproject.ihuw.pl/index.php?SourceID=1157&id=6
Monumenta Germaniae Historica. “Clavis Canonum.” Accessed October 4, 2026. https://data.mgh.de/databases/clavis/db/
Gratian. Decretum. “De Consecratione, Distinctio I.” Bayerische Staatsbibliothek. Accessed October 4, 2026. https://geschichte.digitale-sammlungen.de/decretum-gratiani/kapitel/dc_chapter_3_3799